I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by misinterpreting what I said (mindblowing, huh), but let me try this again by slightly rephrasing my question:
"Given that the best PS3 games look better than the best 360 games, how come all teams who create cross-platform games make games which look worse on the PS3, even if their best devs are working on the PS3 version?"
You say that the PS3 is harder to program for and has an inflexible memory structure. That is obviously true, but does not by itself explain why the PS3 versions of games look worse. You then say that the PS3 and 360 are not equally powerful; I guess you mean to imply that the 360 is more powerful than the PS3. If that is true, then how come GT Prologue looks so much better than Forza 2? How come that there's nothing on the 360 which looks anything like R&C? Given the games available today, it's obvious that the PS3 is capable of graphics on par with the 360.
My suspicion is that publishers simply put less money into PS3 versions of their games, since they will inevitably sell less than 360 versions. I also suspect that the "we have the best devs working on PS3" claims are BS.
Usual disclaimer required in all console discussions: I own all three current-gen consoles and both current-gen portables. I'm neither a Sony nor a Microsoft fanboy, although I admit to being a bit of a Nintendo fanboy.
It shouldn't be routine, but then, it's not too hard to do on Macs. You can do an archive and install, which: Put in the DVD, select the drive, select "archive and install", wait an hour or so, and your Mac is working again, with a clean version of OS X and all of your user data kept intact.
Frankly, I don't quite understand why cross-platform games look worse on the PS3. I own both consoles, and I do think that the new R&C and Uncharted look better than anything I've seen on the 360. Yet all developers who create games also running on the 360 screw up their PS3 versions, even if they have "the best devs" working on the PS3 version. Why is this?
I own both a PS3 and a 360. I have only seen the PS3 version. There's definitely noticeable framedrops in the PS3 version, but I don't know how they compare the the 360 version.
The PS3's architecture is better in theory, but since there's only 256 MB on each side, porting games from the 360 to the PS3 (which may use more than 256 MB on one of the two sides) becomes harder.
I'm not even going to worry about the PS3 version. I've learned that if it is available for PC, always get that version.
I intended to get the PS3 version, because:
I don't install games on my Windows installation because games on Windows generally tend to install all kinds of spyware; not to mention that I prefer to play games using the projector, sitting on my couch; just pop in the game, grab the controller and go. No booting and installing and all that boring stuff
I don't want go get the 360 version because I don't pay for Gold; I use my PS3 for online games
So hopefully, EA will fix the issues before release.
I should point out: the DS version of Burnout Legends
If they really made this piece of crap, then why are they still working for EA? This must be one of the worst games I've ever played; easily worse than E.T. on the 2600.
How the heck did that happen? Pong is more of a classic then Mario ever will be.
No. They're both classics in their own right, but it's very obvious that Super Mario Bros (not Mario per se, but the specific game) was way more influential in modern games than Pong.
Graphics are one part of a whole. Very few successful games take the route you mentioned. Heavenly sword looks very good, but it's also a pretty decent brawler; Gears of war was gorgeous, and was a fun third person shooter; Ratchet and Clank future:TOD was really good looking, and an awesome combat platformed.
See, I think these games actually show that graphics alone can't make a game. HS was a "decent brawler", but it was only a decent brawler, and it was over after 6 hours. It didn't really offer anything other than great graphics and incredible cut-scenes.
I'll say that GoW did combine innovation and graphics, so I won't argue with this one; but R&C? Really? In my opinion, it's not an awesome platformer. It's an average, linear shooter and a crappy platformer. Its gameplay just can't keep up with its graphics.
Where is this mythical "graphics before gameplay" game that sold really well?
I think that's kind of the point: Most of these games don't sell really well, yet devs keep on making them because even though they don't sell well, it's still less risk than innovating with gameplay and risking a total bomb.
As for the "gameplay before graphics" games: Wii Sports. I think that game alone shows that games (and even consoles) can sell on gameplay alone.
You're right, of course, better graphics does not make a game worse. The problem is that many dev teams seem to put graphics first and worry about gameplay later. Two examples which may not make me very popular, but I think they show this perfectly well:
Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction This game looks awesome. It also plays well, don't get me wrong, but it's very obvious that the team spent most of their resources improving the graphics. The gameplay is virtually unchanged from the PS2 days: It's a linear shooter. I've played this game a hundred times already.
Uncharted Again, a beautiful, beautiful game. I was looking forward to this game so much, until I played the demo and figured out that it's basically Gears of War on an island. There's no freedom, no innovation. You can't discover the island, all you can do is follow predefined paths and shoot regular batches of enemies.
Now the two devs working on those games are absolute A-list material. They're clearly among the best in the industry. The graphics in their games blow away every other console title. But guess what, I'd still rather play Zack & Wiki or Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii. These two games may not look as great as R&C or Uncharted, but the teams working on them put a lot of thought into gameplay instead of spending all of their resouces on graphics.
I don't want to bash the PS3 or hype the Wii, either. It's not about consoles. There's no reason why the PS3 could not sustain a game with a focus on gameplay. There's also no reason why good, innovative gameplay and awesome graphics could not co-exist in the same game (and it looks like there are some games coming up providing just this combination; Little Big Planet looks very promising). But as a general rule, it seems that the more money a team invests into graphics, the less innovative and interesting gameplay turns out to be.
Maybe it's pure economics: If you invest a lot of money, you want to play it save and not risk alienating gamers with interesting gameplay. I don't know why it is; but it does seem to be a pretty good rule that the better a game looks, the more boring its gammeplay is.
A 600 bucks turd isn't exactly a bargain compared to a 1000 bucks Rolex watch. Money isn't the only thing that matters, you know. It's also about what you get for the money.
Are you seriously telling me you do not have any spare screens, keyboards and mice? And you're visiting/.? And even if you add all those things, you're still under the US$ 900 GP has suggested aren't enough for a Mac.
Also, I couldn't possibly care less about how much an Inspirion costs. GP claimed you could not buy a Mac for 900 bucks, and I replied to him. How does Dell even enter the equation here? Has Dell started selling them with Mac OS X or something? Are they paying you to pimp their crappy hardware?
I remember Connectix had an awesome PS1 emulator for Macs called "Virtual Game Station". It ran PS1 games perfectly well even on early PPC Macs such as the toilet seat iBook. Current Playstation emulators should not run slow on current machines, I think...
But you're right about the N64. I've yet to see a really good N64 emulator.
If you RTFM, you'll find that after looking at the source they found, they think Nintendo may have lost the original source code to Link's Awakening (which would be truly sad) and had to dissassemble it to create DX. So the original game probably has different stuff on it, if anything.
Dude, the 360 isn't doing much better than the original Xbox. The difference between the 360 and the Xbox isn't how they're doing; it's what they're up against. The original Xbox was owned by the PS2; the current Xbox is owned by the Wii.
The 360 isn't anymore a must-have gaming machine than the Xbox was; and I say this as somebody who owns all three current-gen consoles.
Looks like the Zune 2 is going to do about as well as the 360, with the sole exception that the competitor which is going to own it won't change; it'll still be Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here by misinterpreting what I said (mindblowing, huh), but let me try this again by slightly rephrasing my question:
"Given that the best PS3 games look better than the best 360 games, how come all teams who create cross-platform games make games which look worse on the PS3, even if their best devs are working on the PS3 version?"
You say that the PS3 is harder to program for and has an inflexible memory structure. That is obviously true, but does not by itself explain why the PS3 versions of games look worse. You then say that the PS3 and 360 are not equally powerful; I guess you mean to imply that the 360 is more powerful than the PS3. If that is true, then how come GT Prologue looks so much better than Forza 2? How come that there's nothing on the 360 which looks anything like R&C? Given the games available today, it's obvious that the PS3 is capable of graphics on par with the 360.
My suspicion is that publishers simply put less money into PS3 versions of their games, since they will inevitably sell less than 360 versions. I also suspect that the "we have the best devs working on PS3" claims are BS.
Usual disclaimer required in all console discussions: I own all three current-gen consoles and both current-gen portables. I'm neither a Sony nor a Microsoft fanboy, although I admit to being a bit of a Nintendo fanboy.
It shouldn't be routine, but then, it's not too hard to do on Macs. You can do an archive and install, which: Put in the DVD, select the drive, select "archive and install", wait an hour or so, and your Mac is working again, with a clean version of OS X and all of your user data kept intact.
Dreamcast, here I come!
That's what Infinity Ward actually said: They had their top programmers working on the PS3 version.
The best part, of course, is that the 360 version still looks better than the PS3 version.
Frankly, I don't quite understand why cross-platform games look worse on the PS3. I own both consoles, and I do think that the new R&C and Uncharted look better than anything I've seen on the 360. Yet all developers who create games also running on the 360 screw up their PS3 versions, even if they have "the best devs" working on the PS3 version. Why is this?
I own both a PS3 and a 360. I have only seen the PS3 version. There's definitely noticeable framedrops in the PS3 version, but I don't know how they compare the the 360 version.
The PS3's architecture is better in theory, but since there's only 256 MB on each side, porting games from the 360 to the PS3 (which may use more than 256 MB on one of the two sides) becomes harder.
It's more of a light beige, unfortunately. Looks dirty next to my shiny white Wii :-(
I intended to get the PS3 version, because:
So hopefully, EA will fix the issues before release.
If they really made this piece of crap, then why are they still working for EA? This must be one of the worst games I've ever played; easily worse than E.T. on the 2600.
No. They're both classics in their own right, but it's very obvious that Super Mario Bros (not Mario per se, but the specific game) was way more influential in modern games than Pong.
They don't. New Super Mario Bros is one of the best-selling Mario titles of all times.
See, I think these games actually show that graphics alone can't make a game. HS was a "decent brawler", but it was only a decent brawler, and it was over after 6 hours. It didn't really offer anything other than great graphics and incredible cut-scenes.
I'll say that GoW did combine innovation and graphics, so I won't argue with this one; but R&C? Really? In my opinion, it's not an awesome platformer. It's an average, linear shooter and a crappy platformer. Its gameplay just can't keep up with its graphics.
Where is this mythical "graphics before gameplay" game that sold really well?I think that's kind of the point: Most of these games don't sell really well, yet devs keep on making them because even though they don't sell well, it's still less risk than innovating with gameplay and risking a total bomb.
As for the "gameplay before graphics" games: Wii Sports. I think that game alone shows that games (and even consoles) can sell on gameplay alone.
You're right, of course, better graphics does not make a game worse. The problem is that many dev teams seem to put graphics first and worry about gameplay later. Two examples which may not make me very popular, but I think they show this perfectly well:
Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction
This game looks awesome. It also plays well, don't get me wrong, but it's very obvious that the team spent most of their resources improving the graphics. The gameplay is virtually unchanged from the PS2 days: It's a linear shooter. I've played this game a hundred times already.
Uncharted
Again, a beautiful, beautiful game. I was looking forward to this game so much, until I played the demo and figured out that it's basically Gears of War on an island. There's no freedom, no innovation. You can't discover the island, all you can do is follow predefined paths and shoot regular batches of enemies.
Now the two devs working on those games are absolute A-list material. They're clearly among the best in the industry. The graphics in their games blow away every other console title. But guess what, I'd still rather play Zack & Wiki or Super Mario Galaxy on the Wii. These two games may not look as great as R&C or Uncharted, but the teams working on them put a lot of thought into gameplay instead of spending all of their resouces on graphics.
I don't want to bash the PS3 or hype the Wii, either. It's not about consoles. There's no reason why the PS3 could not sustain a game with a focus on gameplay. There's also no reason why good, innovative gameplay and awesome graphics could not co-exist in the same game (and it looks like there are some games coming up providing just this combination; Little Big Planet looks very promising). But as a general rule, it seems that the more money a team invests into graphics, the less innovative and interesting gameplay turns out to be.
Maybe it's pure economics: If you invest a lot of money, you want to play it save and not risk alienating gamers with interesting gameplay. I don't know why it is; but it does seem to be a pretty good rule that the better a game looks, the more boring its gammeplay is.
Again, there's no reason for comparison.
GP: "You can't buy a Mac for 900 US$"
Me: "Here's a Mac for 600 US$"
You: "Here's a Dell!"
Do you see the irrelevance of your post in the context of the discussion?
A 600 bucks turd isn't exactly a bargain compared to a 1000 bucks Rolex watch. Money isn't the only thing that matters, you know. It's also about what you get for the money.
Are you seriously telling me you do not have any spare screens, keyboards and mice? And you're visiting /.? And even if you add all those things, you're still under the US$ 900 GP has suggested aren't enough for a Mac.
Also, I couldn't possibly care less about how much an Inspirion costs. GP claimed you could not buy a Mac for 900 bucks, and I replied to him. How does Dell even enter the equation here? Has Dell started selling them with Mac OS X or something? Are they paying you to pimp their crappy hardware?
Well, they'd be right. It's free, after all :-)
You can get a Mac mini for 600 bucks. If you wait a month and spend 1100 bucks, you can get a MacBook, and for a 100 bucks more, a very nice iMac.
Apple Store Online
I remember Connectix had an awesome PS1 emulator for Macs called "Virtual Game Station". It ran PS1 games perfectly well even on early PPC Macs such as the toilet seat iBook. Current Playstation emulators should not run slow on current machines, I think...
But you're right about the N64. I've yet to see a really good N64 emulator.
If you RTFM, you'll find that after looking at the source they found, they think Nintendo may have lost the original source code to Link's Awakening (which would be truly sad) and had to dissassemble it to create DX. So the original game probably has different stuff on it, if anything.
Using an iPhone in Switzerland. Switched from a P990i. No decrease in signal strength.
You post flamebait and it gets modded down. Seems to me the system works.
What else than flamebait would you call your post? Let's see:
"If Jobs had not made so many proclamations about the ability of the iPhone to walk in water"
Show me one single claim Jobs made about the iPhone's abilities that is false.
Jobs did not claim a single thing about the iPhone that it does not do. Which is a stark contrast to most other tech companies.
Also, walking in water does not seem too hard to me to begin with.
I think your numbers are misleading. The Zune quickly got 9% of its market segment, which gave it second place after the iPod. A week later, it dropped to #5 or so again.
I think the Zune currently holds 10% of the HD based MP3 players ; unfortunately, most MP3 players sold are not HD based, so the number is pretty much meaningless.
Dude, the 360 isn't doing much better than the original Xbox. The difference between the 360 and the Xbox isn't how they're doing; it's what they're up against. The original Xbox was owned by the PS2; the current Xbox is owned by the Wii.
The 360 isn't anymore a must-have gaming machine than the Xbox was; and I say this as somebody who owns all three current-gen consoles.
Looks like the Zune 2 is going to do about as well as the 360, with the sole exception that the competitor which is going to own it won't change; it'll still be Apple.